Various abbreviations that may appear in the ensuing description and/or in the drawing figures are defined as follows:
3GPPthird generation partnership projectHARQhybrid automatic repeat requestDLdownlinkULuplinkPHYphysical (layer 1)DPCHdedicated physical channelHSUPAhigh-speed uplink packet accessMACmedium access controlRLCradio link controlRNCradio network controllerTTItransmission time intervalDTCHdedicated traffic channelDCCHdedicated control channelDCHdedicated channelE-DCHenhanced dedicated transport channelE-TFCenhanced transport format combinationFPframe protocolPDUprotocol data unitUEuser equipmentNode Bbase stationTNLtransport network layerUMTSuniversal mobile telecommunication systemUTRANUMTS terrestrial radio access networkMSCmobile switching centerVLRvisitor location registerSGSNserving gateway support nodeVoIPvoice over interne protocol
Radio communication systems provide users with the convenience of mobility along with a rich set of services and features. This convenience has spawned significant adoption by an ever growing number of consumers as an accepted mode of communication for business and personal uses. To promote greater adoption, the telecommunication industry, from manufacturers to service providers, has agreed at great expense and effort to develop standards for communication protocols that underlie the various services and features.
One area of effort involves transport format combination selection. Namely, improper selection can result in inefficient data transmissions. This is particularly of importance when data of differing priorities need to be handled, resulting in greater complexity in the associated hardware (e.g., user equipment) and software.
Therefore, there is a need for an approach for providing efficient transport format combination selection, which can co-exist with already developed standards and protocols.